Turkish History, Lavening of Cultures, Civilization

Editor’s note: There are in this document some octal characters
that have no cross-platform legitimate ASCII equivalents and
probably represent proprietary (Microsoft) assignments. Since they are
non-standard, I left them in their original octal format.

Let us now consider how one culture flourishes and, a millennia later,
influences another. In this case, without any intention to do so.

A booklet, issued by the U.S. Congress, contains the following
information:

The 23 relief portraits in marble are of men noted
in history for the part they played in the evolution of
what has become American law. They were placed over the
gallery doors of the House of Representatives Chamber
when it was remodelled 1949-1950.

Created in bas relief of white Vermont marble by
seven different sculptors, the plaques each measure 28"
in diameter. One is full face, and 22 are profile. From
the full face of Moses on the north wall, 11 profiles
face left and 11 face right, ending at the Webster
quotation on the south wall above the speaker’s chair.
The subjects of the plaques were jointly chosen by a
group from the University of Pennsylvania, and the
Columbia Historical Society of Washington D.C. in
consultation with authoritative staff members of the
Library of Congress. The selection was approved by a
special committee of five Members of the House of
Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol and his
associates.

The plaster models of these reliefs may be seen on
the walls of the Rayburn House Office Building subway
terminal.

Thus we learn that Suleiman (1494-1566), whose epithet is Lawgiver (he
recodified the laws of the Ottoman empire), is regarded as an
individual whose actions and thoughts have influenced the formation of
the U.S. law; therefore our actions. One can learn more about
Suleiman’s reign by reading works about him. However, a critical
factor concerning Suleiman needs to be considered: What influenced his
mind?

Suleiman’s ancestors in the Ottoman dynasty (13-20 centuries)
have established a palace school. The purpose of this institution was
twofold: to educate the future rulers (their own off-spring) and to
simultaneously train the future high-level bureaucracy. In this
manner, the high level bureaucrats and the rulers would know each
other, from their earliest ages. As can be expected, Suleiman was a
student.

The palace school instructors also had to train future teachers, to
maintain successful continuity. Among other subjects, statecraft
(what we now call Public Administration) was taught at the palace
school. One of the earliest known manuals of statecraft anywhere is
Balasagun’lu Yusuf’s Kutadgu Bilig. It was completed in
1070/1 C.E. in the heart of Asia, four centuries prior to the voyage
of Columbus, and dedicated to Tavgach Han, the ruler of the
Karakhanids. An English translation by Robert Dankoff is available,
under the title Wisdom of Royal Glory: Kutadgu Bilig (Chicago, 1983).

Kutadgu Bilig has three known mss. One of them is referenced as the
Herat copy. According to a note found on this particular mss, the
volume was brought to Istanbul in 1474 (still before the Columbus
voyage) from Tokat in Asia minor by Fenerizade Kadþ Ali, for the use
of Abdrrezzak þeyhzade Bahshi. Professor Reþit Rahmeti Arat makes
the following observation concerning this note:

In the Ottoman bureaucracy, there were chanceries
managing the official correspondence with the Central
Asian states. At their head, there was an educated
individual with the title ’Bahshi’ who knew the Central
Asian conditions well; often they themselves were from
those regions. þeyhzade Abddrrezzak Bahshi is such a
person during the time of Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet
II), working in Istanbul. Thus we understand why the
said copy of Kutadgu Bilig is brought to Istanbul in
879/1474. However, it becomes difficult to trace the
peregrinations of that work afterwards. On page 190,
there is another note: purchased from blacksmith Hamza;
next to Molla Hayreddin’s friday chapel; as witnessed by
Hoca Hacþ Dellal. This Hoca Hayreddin mentioned is a
teacher of Fatih Sultan Mehmet, and died in 880/1475.

Recalling that Fatih died in 1481, his son Bayazit II in
1512, and so his son Yavuz Selim in 1520; Selim’s son,
Suleiman, ruled 1520-1566, one might place Kutadgu Bilig into
perspective, by briefly considering similar works from other
cultures, contents and messages.

Magna Carta (1215) is a well-known document. It was
forced on King John, by his subordinates. It does not address
the concerns of the British population; but regulates only the
relations of barons with their king. The barons grew weary of
the King confiscating their wealth, and the basis of the
document reflects this aspect. By signing Magna Carta, King
John promised not to expropriate the lands and money of his
nobles. By contrast, Kutadgu Bilig is concerned with the
happiness of the masses, as the basis of the legitimacy of the
ruler. In other words, according to Kutadgu Bilig, the ruler
should rule by the consent of the ruled. The ruler ought to
be impeacheable, if she does not bring forth happiness for the
masses.

It should be remembered that Kutadgu Bilig was completed
some century and a half before Magna Carta. It is also of
interest to note that Magna Carta has been held as a model
constitution for many a successor document.

The Prince (1513) is another well-known work. Written
almost five centuries after Kutadgu Bilig, The Prince sides
with the Italian rulers (of the city states of the time);
again, as opposed to the masses. We may consider that as a
requisitie of the time and the locality. There is no
proposition in The Prince, as the U.S. constitution states
...for pursuit of happiness... for the individual citizen,
or the society in general.

The aforementioned decision of the US House of
Representatives in 1950, then, is a tribute not only to
Suleiman, but by extension a celebration of the pluralism of
Kutadgu Bilig. This can be considered an example of the
educational leavening process in societies at large.

Change is inescapable. One who does not adapt to change,
is likely to pass from the scene. This holds true not only
for individuals, but especially for political states, and
cultures. Each successful community —one that prospered
within its environment—devised its own method of coping
with change. Each successful society also transmitted its
cultural values to future generations. The study of the means
of those transmission methods is a fruitful endeavor.

One example of such adaptation is the American transition
from a fundamentally theologically inspired educational
environment to a liberal arts college system. This transition
was essentially designed by a handful of individuals in the
18th and 19th century U.S., by the likes of Jefferson,
Washington and Franklin. That change was primarily effected
in the hopes of giving the fledgling republic a sound
intellectual future base, because the liberal education was by
then regarded a vanguard of an open mind towards a balanced
world-view. The U.S. founding fathers were well read, and
knew the tribulations of previous cultures and civilizations.

Accordingly, the founding fathers were acquainted with
Plato (c. 4th B.C.E.), who in his book entitled Republic
suggested that the true function of the state is to balance
the social forces for the advancement of society. Revolutions
and social upheavals may be started by seemingly simple
reasons. In actuality, they are the result of accumulated
injustices. In the end of sometimes protracted struggles,
democracy may be achieved. The principle of democracy is the
independence and self governance of the people. However, the
masses must be educated in order to select their suitable
governing representatives. If a population cannot choose
wisely, democracy may decay into autocracy. Demagogues,
through their superior orations, may gain leadership. It may
even seem that those able to garner votes are capable of
governing. The true democracy requires education.

It was the Greeks who first disregarded Plato’s
teachings, and their democracy was lost to empire end
dictatorship. The Roman Republic shared the same fate in the
hands of Julius Caesar (100-44 C. E). The Roman historian
Tacitus (First Century C. E.), in his The Agricola and the
Germania [H. Mattingly, Tr.] outlined the policy of the Roman
empire in Britain:

[We] elevated King Cogidumnus to the throne,
who served us loyally... in this manner, enslaved
masses were governed for the Roman Empire. Britons
were at first living in scattered settlements thus
prone to rebellion. [The Roman Governor of Britain]
Agricola privately encouraged Britons to build
temples, baths and Roman style public buildings, in
order to gather them into large settlements and to
induce them to live in luxury and in pursuit of
pleasure. In his official capacity, Agricola helped
those Britons who undertook his wishes, and rewarded
them. Those who were slow to accept Agricola’s
invitation were scorned and criticized. In this
manner, Agricola sought to control the Britons not
through state coercion, but by introducing private
competition and sowing discord among them.
Moreover, Agricola sought to educate the children of
the Britons in the Roman way, and in Latin. In a
short span of time, Roman clothing and ways
proliferated among the Britons. The Britons began
to lose their indigenous customs, commenced
attending baths and hosting magnificent parties.
Due to their inexperience, Britons thought of their
new ways as civilization. In actuality, it was
nothing but a requirement of their servitude.

On the other hand, in the same work, Tacitus also records
the thoughts of some Britons, apparently obtained through
informers, who were aware of the predicament their society was
facing. These opponents of Roman policies resorted to
physical fight in order to free themselves. This is akin to
the Basmachi movement of Central Asia during 1916-1930s, as
described by one of their leaders, Togan:

Basmachi is derived from baskinji, meaning
attacker, and was first applied to bands of
brigands. During the tsarist times, these brigands
existed when (Turkistan) independence was lost and
Russian occupation began in Turkmenistan,
Bashkurdistan and Crimea. Bashkurts (in Russian
language sources: Bashkir) called the ayyar, by the
Khorasan term. In Crimea (and, borrowed from there,
in Ukraine) haydamak was used. Among Bashkurts such
heroes as Buranbay; in Crimea, Halim; in Samarkand,
Namaz became famous. These did not bother the local
indigenous population but sacked the Russians and
the Russian flour-mills, distributing their booty to
the population. In Ferghana, these elements were
also active during the tsarist times.... After the
proliferation of cotton planting in Ferghana [with
the forced the tsarist policy of replacing grain
production] the economic conditions deteriorated.
This increased the brigandage. Among earlier
Basmachi, as was the case among the Western Turks,
the spiritual leader of the zbek and Turkmen bands
was Kroþlu. Basmachi of Bukhara, Samarkand, Jizzakh
and Turkmen gathered at nights to read Kroþlu and
other dastans. What has the external appearance of
brigandage is actually a reflection and
representation of the thoughts and spirit of a wide
segment of the populace. Akchuraoglu Yusuf Bey
reminds us that during the independence movements of
the Serbians, the Hdk; the Kleft and Palikarya of
the Greeks comprised half nationalist
revolutionaries and half brigands... The majority
and the most influential of the Basmachi groups
founded after 1918 did not follow the Kroþlu
tradition; they were composed of serious village
leadership and sometimes the educated. Despite
that, all were labelled Basmachi. Consequently, in
Turkistan, these groups were regarded as
’partisans;’ more especially representing the
guerilla groups fighting against the colonial power.
Nowadays, in zbek and Kazakh press, one reads about
Chinese, Algerian and Indian Basmachi.

Not only did the Founding Fathers seek to avoid the errors
of the old Greeks and the Romans, but went a step further. By
establishing liberal arts institutions of higher learning, the
Founders pursued a policy of educating the American masses,
thereby ensuring the continuance of what was established; the
Republic. Thus, in 1753 Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) helped
found [among others], the College of Philadelphia, later to
become University of Pennsylvania. Thomas Jefferson (1743-
1826) led the establishment of University of Virginia in 1819.
George Washington not only gave his name to at least one
college, but also supported the creation of others. These
initiatives were followed by the founding of Johns Hopkins
University and the University of Chicago. These institutions
were devoted to the development of Liberal Arts, as opposed to
the training of clergy. Almost all colonial American colleges
prior to 1776 were designed after the European model,
including Harvard (1636), Yale (1701), Princeton (established
in 1766 as College of New Jersey), and were first and foremost
training institutions for preachers. The newly created
Liberal Arts Colleges were to soon require the older
universities and colleges to revise and reform their
curricula, and adopt the liberal education approach. Most
other institutions followed that lead.

Religion, or a given belief sytem, is also regarded as an
essential ingredient of culture and civilization. Hence,
approaches to religion of various cultures are important and
the study of religion to the extent those societies have
chosen to modify religion, to suit their own needs, is to be
studied.

To summarize: We humans are influenced by events;
whether we know their sources or not. If we are not cognizant
of the sources of influences, it is too easy for us to be led
astray. As a result, we may lose our humanity. There are
many examples, not the least in the 20th century.

We are in search of that defining essence of humanity;
what constitutes it. This is a long term search, one that may
never be finalized. For good reason: The search itself is the
infinitely dynamic voyage, and the results attained along the
way are markers, if you will, of the evolving measures. If
the humanity does not continually refine itself, than we run
the risk of allowing the horrors and inhumanities experienced
in the past to take over once again.

A free society cannot survive without the educated and
active participation of its members. In order to participate
as a responsible citizen, individuals must be prepared.
Preparation includes the ability to comprehend and analyze
information, which one learns through a liberal arts
education. Familiarity with the society’s goals and
principles, as necessary as familiarity with ones’ own, is
attained through the study of societies in their entirety. A
liberal arts education provides people with a broad
foundation. Anything less than a whole education, that is
Liberal Arts education, will eventually lead to a society
which is not free. Without such a base, a democratic society
will give way to the sway of an attractive rhetoric or
personality, as has been demonstrated several times even in
the 20th century.